This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history!
3.5 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.

Links

Jeff to MGJA = QanonChallenge@gmail.com

MARCH 3, 2018

Q says: "You, the People, have ALL the POWER. You simply forgot how to PLAY."

Qpost March 17, 2019

The evening of, March 16, 2019, I posted my recommendation on Nesara News TO "VOID THE SERVICE CONTRACT" which initially hired the foreign corporation, "United States Inc" to provide limited government services, and I recommended declaring BREACHES OF CONTRACT in the de jure courts of justice for the Republic, followed by VOIDING THE SERVICE CONTRACT, which immediately returns all assets to their original owner, WE THE PEOPLE.

Then, the VERY NEXT DAY,

Trump/Qanon tweeted:

Trump tweeted: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Qanon tweet: "be proud patriots. today like in 2016 you are in one united voice, RISING UP, to defend this great nation."

NOTE: RISING UP = de jure grand jury RISING UP, (Rising up the land above the waters, and above the statutes of maritime law, as statutes are for navigable waterways only. LAWS are for man, STATUTES are for INTERNATIONAL TRADE ONLY (but are currently being used for SLAVERY instead).

Qanon:

Who has the 'real control? Answer = The People

Qanon:

Can you remove the top comments?

(My header comments on Nesara News, as well as my cover letter for the recommendation/proposal were very harsh of Q/Trump. I have removed both.) FYI:(I believe the twitter part in the Q/Trump tweets is just for plausible deniability, Trump used the same type of plausible deniability on another tweet on March 17th, 2019 when he tweeted with a Qanon logo, but he also sent out 17 other tweets with different logos, for plausible deniability, the U.S. NDA(non-disclosure-agreement) signed by these guys must be gnarly).

Hopefully Q/Trump can set the record straight by pointing to Nesara News and our recommendation to VOID THE SERVICE CONTRACT, a fraudulent service contract executed in secret, which was allegedly executed when the Republic hired the foreign owned corporation, "United States Inc" to provide limited government services (international trade only), and then the U.S. quietly mothballed the Republic.

(please keep in mind, all U.S. government positions are PRIVATE, as the corporation is run for max profit. Sec 17 of the above document says that the "legislative body of the United States shall not pass any laws to affect the Republic's Courts of Justice = TRUE PUBLIC OFFICES, which were stolen from us in the dead of the night, replaced with PRIVATE corporate goons to steal, rape and plunder. The good thing though is, fraud has no laws of limitations, nor statute of limitations. As well as, assets purloined by pirates still belong to the original owner regardless of who possesses them.)

Below is the recommendation/proposal for de jure court of justice action:

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

FOLLOWING IS A REPOST OF AN ARTICLE SUBMITTED EARLIER BY JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ IN REGARD TO SIGNING THE
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS ….

07– How to sign your name without assuming
liability

What does a signature mean? I will tell you
right now that when you sign something
(no matter what “they” say), it means that you accept liability. And if you don’t read and agree to EVERYTHING you sign, you are making a
big mistake.

I am constantly being asked… “How do I sign my name? … AND maintain my rights?”

We all know that before they let us go, they ALWAYS want us to sign something
to keep us coming back. There are other points in the “legal” system where a
“signature” is expected or required before the court can proceed as well.

I have heard that adding “Under Duress”, or “All Rights Reserved” to a
signature when signing a document will maintain our inherent human rights; and
while this could work as well, the proper and Latin way to sign under duress is to add a “V.C.”
before your name.

Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites
the definition of vi coactus as:

“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)
Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of
Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:

The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de
Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death
from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly
refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved
by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only adding to his signature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only
yielded to force.

There is scant authoritative information regarding this term on the web.
However, on the One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits website the
following information is provided:

The Bar wants you to sign as surety

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain
documents. Why? Because your
signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as
your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to
waive other rights.

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a
system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can
invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent
and send you to prison anyway.

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when
entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with
complete apparent ignorance of their rights.Why? Because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST
sign.

So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair
system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and
yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure your signature follows a clear mark of
duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined
as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in
large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after-
always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under
constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are
forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest
opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that, upon
review of your signature, it can be proven to have been forced under threat and
coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible
that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more
threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice
remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail
and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made
such a sign of your “own free will”.

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such
a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult
Canon Law - the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations.
However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method
equally valid - the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipses

When the threat of intimidation or outright
rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid
method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of
three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots
are not obscured by the signature.
This is called an ellipsis eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form
of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case
because of threat and coercion.
Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipsis can be revealed and it can be
stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying
any agreement.
It would be of interest to the author if there have been any more recent cases
where V.C. has been used to sign a document. There appears to have been a case
in Indonesia where Dutch interests signed V.C.; however, the author does not
have full access to the journal in question:
The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government against …by
I Login – 1958 – Related
articles
Authority” or “o.p.” (under protest) or “v.c.” (vi coactus). And that, of
course, was preciously what it was: compelled by force. …
Source: journals.cambridge.org/article_S0165070X00029879

List of Lation abbreviations (wikipedia.org) Dumas,
Alexandre – Black Tulip, The (literature.org) Signing
in protest and under duress (one-heaven.org) Cassell’s
Latin Dictionary, pp.103 (exfacie.com) Oxford
Latin Dictionary, pp.339 (exfacie.com)
Note: Correction to the reference from one-heaven.org was
applied (removing the term ellipse for ellipsis). Thanks to Gerald for
identifying this correction.
Article courtesy of Freedom From Government

VOID
JUDGEMENT

The
Commonwealth Style manual says at page 116 that the only proper way to spell
some one’s name is in lower case and that even to capitalize the first Letter
is a family decision… so here you have the
Commonwealth Government admitting that all caps is not the proper way to spell
some one’s name then if you add to that this statement by a
USA supreme court justice the following…

“Inasmuch
as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of
the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.
The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from
creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of
this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect,
court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial
persons and the contracts between them.” – S.C.R. 1795,
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of
the United States 1795 [Not the “United States Supreme Court”]

This
tells you where it stands at the moment…
If you need proof this unconscionable system is used in Australia, then all you
need to do is examine your birth certificate, driver license and most
government and financial institution issued documents. In effect the
law changes a human-being’s status from one of a free man or woman to an
artificial person, juristic person, “ens legis” (creature of legislation) or
legal fiction. It is despicable fraud and deception by the political and
legal systems.

If
you have ever read a statute or Act, you will see references being made to a
“person” instead of a man, woman or human-being. Most Acts do not define
what type of person they refer to: is it a “natural person” (human-being) or an
“artificial person?” In some law dictionaries a “natural person” can also
mean an artificial person, so it would be best not to refer to yourself as a
natural person, but only a man, woman or human-being.

If
you are ever charged and summoned into court always ask and demand to know
if your first name and family name is written in all-capital letters on the
charge sheet, summons and any other court document. Ask something like:
“Before I grant my conditional consent to this proceeding, what is the nature
of the entity this court believes me to be?” and/or “Does that name
printed in all capital letters represent an artificial person; a juristic
person and a legal fiction?”

If
the magistrate or judge ignores, evades or disregards your question, then you
can be reasonably certain that they want you to be liable and responsible for
their created “strawman” legal fiction. You are standing in a court
acting deceptively and fraudulently in that it won’t disclose the fact that it’s
dealing with legal fictions instead of free-born sovereign human-beings.
Tell the court: “I am not the artificial person/entity printed in
your legal documents despite my name sounding the same as the all-capital
printed name. You are attempting to enslave me against my will and
consent to accept liability for the artifical person/entity printed on those
documents.”

Do
not answer a magistrate or judge whenever he uses your name unless he is
willing to state on and for the record the context in which your name is being
used, and all the legal documents have been changed to spell
your name in proper noun English and not all capital letters.

Continue
to object, protest and dissent even if the judgement goes against you because,
without your consent, any judicial decision is null and void and of no legal
consequence. The judgement only applies to their artificial person/entity
– not you!

Capitis
Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)

For
purposes of understanding one’s legal or commercial status under the Admiralty
system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is
necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS - Capitis Diminutio Maxima -
in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards and statements, loans,
mortgages, speeding and parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court
summons, etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently
small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

Gage
Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as: “To take advantage
of – To use to ones own advantage.”

The Legitimate Real DeJure Republic Exists

Are you in doubt that the real original jurisdiction De Jure Republic is being restored? Do you have Questions that you want answered? Do you want to get involved? Visit https://national-assembly.net/ for more information and to participate. Check out the forums as the national assembly is 100% transparent to the public and welcomes public participation. This is the real deal folks. This is our last chance to do it right and nullify the 1871 contract that employed the U.S. Corporation to provide 19 governmental services to the people. This is our right under Article 1 of the Bill of rights. This also nullifies General Order 100 of 1863.

Search This Blog "if this search box is working"

Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic

Donations via paypal can be made to freewill2015nesara@gmail.com 100% funds help cover costs of education and business of the assemblies.

The DUKE - Patriot!

Born in 1948 Died in 2015

National Assembly of the people returning to self governance

Join the forums and introduce yourself so your state coordinator can connect with you.

Nesaranews Mission Statement

Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?

Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle

11

Followers

The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.